proforma_invoices_bulk_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the draft-only precondition and the return shape ('count of deleted and any errors'), which lets the agent anticipate partial failures in a batch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, eligibility constraint second, return behavior third. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the minimum needed by stating the return payload (deleted count plus errors). Combined with the draft-only restriction and full schema coverage on both parameters, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; it could only be improved with explicit routing to the single-delete or cancel alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%: both ids (1-100 UUIDs) and companyId (overrides configured default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, and the batch limit of 100 is only visible in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (delete), resource (proforma invoices), and scope (multiple, in batch), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling proforma_invoices_delete. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but 'bulk/batch' makes the distinction clear enough to select correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Adds one important eligibility rule — only draft proformas can be deleted — which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It gives no guidance on what to do with non-draft proformas (e.g., proforma_invoices_cancel) or on using the single-delete tool for one item, so alternatives are left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.